BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

27 results for “reassessment”+ Section 127(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi673Mumbai351Jaipur172Bangalore147Chandigarh112Hyderabad98Ahmedabad70Kolkata69Raipur67Chennai52Pune46Lucknow38Patna35Indore34Cochin29Telangana28Nagpur27Amritsar27Rajkot24Guwahati23Surat22Jodhpur19Ranchi18Dehradun17Cuttack16Visakhapatnam13Agra12Karnataka8SC6Allahabad4Orissa3Rajasthan2Calcutta2Panaji1Varanasi1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14849Section 14722Addition to Income19Section 6818Section 56(1)(vii)15Section 12715Section 153C9Section 153A9Section 54B9Reassessment

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 308/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Nirmal Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, [***], as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

8
Reopening of Assessment8
Cash Deposit7
ITA 412/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. No plausible reasons have been given in the request for adjournment, which has been rejected. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment on the ground that no valid order

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 410/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. No plausible reasons have been given in the request for adjournment, which has been rejected. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment on the ground that no valid order

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/ASR/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi
Section 115VSection 127Section 132Section 143Section 144Section 144BSection 200ASection 206CSection 246A

4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. No plausible reasons have been given in the request for adjournment, which has been rejected. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment on the ground that no valid order

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 672/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

127, (1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication under the Act (hereafter in this rule referred to as “communication”) may be delivered or transmitted shall be as per sub-rule

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 671/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

127, (1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication under the Act (hereafter in this rule referred to as “communication”) may be delivered or transmitted shall be as per sub-rule

SHRI KIRANJIT SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4(3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 723/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.723/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250(6)

section 149 of income tax act, 1961. 6. That no valid notice u/s 148 is ever served to justify that the reassessment proceedings is as per law. I.T.A. No.723/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case service of notice u/s 148 by affixture is illegal, bad in law and is liable

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 289/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 250(6)

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee, on the basis of information available in the ITBA system criv/ vruhigh risk cases, pointing to the allegation of huge financial transaction undertaken by the assessee involving various bank accounts and receipt of funds from one ‘YathuriAssociates” amounting to Rs. 12.21 Crores (Twelve crores twenty one lakhs approx. ) during

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 290/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 147Section 250(6)

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee, on the basis of information available in the ITBA system criv/ vruhigh risk cases, pointing to the allegation of huge financial transaction undertaken by the assessee involving various bank accounts and receipt of funds from one ‘YathuriAssociates” amounting to Rs. 12.21 Crores (Twelve crores twenty one lakhs approx. ) during

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

127 DTR 241 and Kishan Chand Chela Ram reported in 125 ITR 713. 6. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the part of the purchases from the same party under similar circumstances to the tune of Rs.15,16,294/- have been accepted and non-acceptance of such purchases under similar circumstances from the same party is against

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR (ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 731/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR(ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that

SHRIMATI JATINDER KAUR ( ALIAS AMRITA),JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 730/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that

SHRI BABBU SINGH S/O SHRI NACHHATER SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed

SHRI.BOOTA SINGH S/O. SH. NACHATER SINGH, BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed

SHRI NACHHATER SINGH S/O SHRI GURBAKSH SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER , BATHINDA

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 148Section 151Section 546Section 54B

4. Omkam Developers Ltd. 116-140 127,128, 133 & 137 5. N.C. Cables Ltd. 141-145 141 d). Thus, on the basis of above said judgments, it was submitted that the reassessment proceedings are void abinitio on account of ‘mechanical ITA Nos. 162 to 164/Asr/2019 8 approval’ given by the PCIT and, therefore, the assessment deserves to be quashed

LAKHVIR SINGH 810, VPO MALLAH TEHSIL JAGRAON DISTRICT LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

4 to 9 are on merits of the case relating to the addition of Rs.20,54,000/- and also on the issue of reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of wrong reasons recorded and also agitated the issue that reassessment in this case has been done after three years where the income escaped assessment is less than

SHRI OM PARKASH BAJAJ,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 216/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)
Section 144Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 250

4. Considering the grounds of appeal and the materials on record we proceed to dispose off this appeal after hearing the Ld. DR. 5. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12.85 lakhs in his bank account with J & K Bank, during the FY 2011-12, and in absence of any return

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

ITA 410/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 263

reassessment, in this case, was preceded by a regular assessment made earlier. 5. That the order under appeal is wholly against law and facts of the case.” 3. Brief fact is that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s P.K. & Company, Kapurthala was engaged in trading of paddy husk and also transportation of goods from the premises of Vendor

SHRI MADAL LAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 112/ASR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153B(1)Section 153D

127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notice u/s 153A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” 11. The ld. AR had submitted that the fact ofpassing theassessment order on 27.07.2016, i.e prior to receipt of the approval letter is confirmed from the receipt stamp dated 28/7/2016, marked on the approval letter dated 27.07.2016 , after it was received in the office